They’re both as large as the Zeiss 35/1.4, but with worse image quality, mechanical quality, and quality control. has detailed reviews of both of these lenses. I had to compensate for this when shooting at f/2.8-f/4, and life’s too short for that. I owned this lens before switching to the FLE version, and I don’t recommend it on digital because the focus shift is actually pretty bad. The version III of this lens is so much better that I don’t recommend anyone bother with versions I-II. It’s never interested me due to its soft, vintage image quality, strong focus shift, and very messy rendering. This is a very popular lens since it’s f/1.4, tiny, and cheap. It’s hard to recommend these lenses since the Voigtlander 35/2 Ultron and the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon are both better for a similar price. Alternatively, you can buy something from my accessories page or buy me a coffee! If you decide to buy this lens (which I don’t recommend) and want me to get paid a commission, please complete your purchase using my custom link. Making this website is my hobby and hosting it costs $200/year. But all of them have far superior corner-to-corner performance than the lens reviewed here. The Voigtlander 35 APO and Zeiss 35/1.4 are large, the Leica 35 APO is incredibly expensive, and the Zeiss 35/2.8 is slow. Theses lenses all have their pros and cons. If the Summicron interested you because you’re looking for an amazingly sharp 35mm, what you should get instead is one of the lenses from this list: Yet another good option for a general purpose 35 is the Voigtlander 35/1.2 III, which is a bit larger but offers an impressive f/1.2 aperture. The combination of f/1.4, great image quality, and excellent handling makes it much more worth the money than the Summicron. Or, if you’re willing to drop thousands of dollars on a Leica lens, I would recommend spending extra to get the Leica 35 Summilux ( review). It has at least as good image quality as the Summicron for a far lower price. If you’re looking for a general purpose 35mm lens, I would recommend the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron ( review) over the Summicron 100% of the time. Leica knows this, which is why in 2021 they released the 35 APO-Summicron. In the year 2021, however, the Summicron feels obsolete and overpriced. I bet the Summicron was an incredible lens when it was released in 1996, as aspherical lenses were still a relatively new technology. The 35 Summicron ASPH, on the other hand, is remarkably average. But when spending $3695 for a 35/2 lens, shouldn’t we expect image quality that’s better than just acceptable? Other Leica lenses justify their price tags with incredible optical performance (such as the 21/3.4 or the 75/2) or by delivering a combination of size, speed, and sharpness that’s not available anywhere else (such as the 35/1.4 FLE). I thoroughly enjoyed using mine and only sold it because I wanted f/1.4. In summary, the 35 Summicron ASPH is a lens with fantastic handling and acceptable image quality. The best buy here would have to be the Summilux.As you can see, there’s a good reason why the most commonly used word to describe this lens is “sharp.” There’s definitely a drop in resolution off-axis, but it rarely makes images look unsharp. For my other work, it seems that any of these lenses will do. So, for night scenes, and for bokeh lovers, the 1963 Summilux is a real winner, over even a new Summicron. I attribute the difference in the Summicrons in part to coating differences. The 1997 Summicron-M was next, and the 1959 Summicron DR was a distant third, with considerable amount of flare. The clear winner was the 1963 Summilux, with little flare from street lamps and the best shadow detail. Night scenes were a whole different matter. The Summilux had the longest focus track.
#Leica 50mm summicron vs summilux full#
The DR has a full time hood (I used the one from the Elmar). The Summicron-M was the closest focusing (not taking into account the ability of the DR to use eyes), and has half stop clicks and a built in hood. In short, except for night scenes, the three lenses were really interchangeable in terms of resulting image. The in focus areas were indistiguishable.įor bokeh fans, the Summilux was much "smoother" and the two Summicrons were very similar. The color rendition from all three lenses was identical.įor everything except night scenes, the images were very, very close. I have not put the slides under a scanner and examined the micro details (yet),īut some interesting observations were immediately apparent on a light table. Night shots with lights in the image and outdoor shots. Lens 3: 50 mm Summicron-M circa 1997 (borrowed from friend) Lens 2: 50 mm Dual Range Summicron circa 1959 Lens 1: 50 mm Summilux, second optical design (post 1,844,001) circa 1963 I swear that I am not obsessed with testing, it is just that I found myself with two 50mm lenses, and I thought I should sell one of them. I thought the following observations might be of interest.
0 kommentar(er)
